Patna High Court
Sriram Bearings Limited vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 27 November, 1985
Equivalent citations: (1986)IILLJ459PAT
JUDGMENT Udai Pratap Singh, J.
1. The short question which arises for consideration is whether an employee dismissed from service on any one of the grounds enumerated in Section 9 of the payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (in short, 'the Act') is disentitled to receive bonus payable only for the accounting year in which the order of dismissal is passed or is disentitled to receive whatsoever bonus was remaining unpaid on the date of the order of dismissal.
2. Section 9 of the Act reads as follows:
9. Disqualification for bonus. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, an employee shall be disqualified from receiving bonus under the Act, if he is dismissed from service for:
(a) Fraud; or
(b) riotous or violent behaviour while on the premises of the establishment; or
(c) theft, misappropriation or sabotage of any property of the establishment.
3. In short, the facts are that the petitioner is a limited company and carries on business of manufacturing ball bearing in his factory located at Ratu, Ranchi. The respondents are the employees of the company. They were dismissed from service for riotous and violent behaviour at the premises of the establishment. The respondent Nos. 2(i) to 2(vi) filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court claiming bonus for the period July, 1975 to June, 1976. The petitioner-company in their show cause submitted that such an application under Section 33-C(2) of the J.D. Act was not maintainable as all these workmen were dismissed employees of the company for various acts of misconduct, riotous and violent behaviour within the premises of the factory and as such they stood disqualified for receiving bonus under Section 9 of the Act. The Labour Court held that the application was maintainable.
4. In a separate application certain facts have been brought to the notice of this Court and in paragraphs 2(a) to 2(e) it is stated by the petitioner that respondents 2(ii) to 2(vi) in their letters sent on different dates to the Works Manager of the petitioner-company requested that their dismissal may be converted into resignation. The said request was accepted by the management and final settlement between the management and these respondents has been arrived at and in accordance with it they were paid their dues in full. Thus in so far as respondents 2(ii) to 2(vi) are concerned, the dispute has now been finally settled. These respondents have neither appeared nor the above statement has been controverted.
5. The only matter which now survives for consideration is in respect of respondent No. 2(i), Sri N.S. Verma who never made such an application before the management for converting his dismissal into resignation. His termination from service was upheld by the Labour Court and the subsequent writ application challenging the said order of termination was also dismissed in limine Mr. Mitter the learned Counsel appearing for Sri Verma has made a limited argument that even though his dismissal from service for the act of riotous and violent behaviour within the premises of the factory has been held to be justified, he is entitled for bonus of the past years excepting the bonus for the accounting year in which the order of dismissal was passed. According to him, the provisions of Section 9 of the Act must be given a restricted meaning and the word an employee shall be disqualified from receiving bonus under this Act should be read so as to mean that the employee shall be disqualified from receiving the bonus of the accounting year only in which he is dismissed because such disqualification is dependant only upon the order of dismissal from service.
6. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mitter. No such restriction in Section 9 of the Act has been put by the Legislature and the words' an employee shall be disqualified from receiving bonus under this Act is wide in its import and must be construed as receiving any bonus under the Act. If Legislature intended to put such restriction in Section 9 of the Act then it would have used the word 'in accounting year.' Therefore, on proper construction of Section 9 it must be held that if an employee is dismissed from service, he stands disqualified from receiving any bonus under the Act and not the bonus only of the accounting year. Reference may be made to a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Wheel & Rim Company of India Limited v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
1971-II L.L.J. 299 where similar contention, as now raised by Mr. Mitter, was over-ruled by the Madras High Court and the view I have taken is supported by the said decision.
7. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order of the Labour Court dated 14th December, 1971 is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.